From 2007: On Anyon's Radical Possibilities

Anyon’s text was a refreshing read, and it was an excellent catalyst for forming connections among the texts I’ve read and courses I’ve taken for the Master’s in Urban Ed. It is becoming quite evident that a collaboration of educational stakeholders is essential if America is to realize any sort of educational reform. On what specific mission do stakeholders collaborate, though? Whereas Anyon said the larger needs of a community must be addressed before the particulars of education can be remedied, Noguera (2003) determined that it’s the quality of our schools that will determine the future of our society (p. 157). Regardless of this pseudo which came first riddle, Anyon’s point that middle and high school teachers can make a significant impact by encouraging students to participate in civic activism was an essential one. This implies, though, that not only will teachers “step up” but also that students will find themselves worthy of their own—and others’—efforts. Many teachers are unfortunately not likely to find an incentive in taking on the charge of a new social movement, but the importance of teens and educators working together will both help teens see that they are worth a quality education and help develop trust between student and teacher. Once this trust begins building, the possibilities for dialogue and change are endless. Anyon remarked that teachers need to consistently—and publicly—assert the potential and abilities inherent in minority students while also explaining to minorities how to negotiate around the predominantly White culture of power. I can’t imagine this conversation going well if there isn’t a significant amount of trust among educators and students. Further, it is vital that educators to develop trust among community members; however, there may be a catch: We have talked in class about a bitterness directed toward White teachers who, albeit well-intentioned, come into the neighborhoods of their students trying to build relationships; is it not possible that even the best intentions of educators will be met with resistance from minority community members? How will this trust begin to take shape?


What’s frustrating is that I don’t see an end to America’s societal “us”/ “them” dichotomy. There will always be “haves” and “have nots.” (For that matter, consider the experiment conducted in Aldous Huxley’s fictional Brave New World; when a group of the high-achieving Alphas were put on an island together they destroyed each other. Although a satirical commentary on society, Huxley does highlight some truth: Society cannot function if there are no followers to the leaders.) So what is most important to America’s future? Stone, et al. (2001) said that “the global economy shows no mercy to individuals who lack basic skills” (p. 11), yet Anyon noted that even with an increase in skilled workers, poverty persists. Where does that leave education? Anyon referenced Doug McAdam in her text, and he observed that belonging to a social group makes it more likely that an individual will participate in “contentious politics.” Perhaps the key is not in leveling the playing field, per se, but rather in encouraging members of any social group—regardless of race or class or religion—to develop pride and confidence; perhaps these are the true determinants of social capital.

Anyon, J. (2005). Radical Possibilities. New York: Routledge.

From 2007: On Hoping for Humility...

"A Novel Notion: Trust Teachers!"

As I read the articles and editorials pertaining to reading instruction, I could not help but think of Michael Apple’s Educating the “Right” Way (2001), a text that challenges the power structure of education and insists that the policies and practices in education are moving towards the conservative right. I promise I will make clear the connections I see between Apple and the assigned readings, but to set up this comparison effectively I need to give a brief run-down of a couple of Apple’s core principles (do excuse the pun...).

First, he calls this movement towards the right “conservative modernization,” a process where different interest groups (“interested” in education) position and reposition themselves in relation to other groups vis á vis power relations. Now what is important to consider is how power is accumulated, and, in the words of Sir Frances Bacon, “Knowledge is power.” So then the question becomes, Who has access to knowledge? And this begs consideration of the notions of social and cultural capital; those who have these forms of capital are the ones who are more likely to gain and maintain power and, by extension, a voice. (I can go into a whole thing about social and cultural capital, but that’s too much of a tangent even for me… if you care let me know and I’ll write an addendum or something and post it later… lol.)

OK, so anyway. America is considered the land of the free, right? But Apple posits (and I totally agree) that freedom is really based on a fear of freedom, a fear of either losing distinction or of becoming too uniform in the “wrong” way. And who determines what is the “right” or “wrong” way for our culture to be represented? Those with the most social and cultural capital, and who currently has this? The right. (Again, there’s lots of support for this, but let’s just operate on the assumption that Apple knows what he’s talking about.) Let me start connecting this stuff to our readings: The Stutz article (1999) discusses how Texan conservatives are pushing for phonics and how their opponents argue that the “conservatives’ agenda is driven by a desire to have a more rigid learning structure in schools, one that avoids critical thinking by students.” Shouldn’t education empower students through engaging in critical thinking? Aren’t we taught in our undergraduate methodology classes that the ultimate goal is to get kids to a level of higher-order thinking? Why would any interest group discourage critical thinking? Fear of losing power.

So here’s the conflict: The state thinks it’s the expert in education and social welfare, yet so do the teachers who spend their days surrounded by students (I know: the nerve!). I absolutely love that Carpenter (2000) quoted Farstrup’s analogy that “[F]ederal pedagogy legislation [is like] having the government ‘tell an aircraft mechanic how to bolt a part on.’” Ultimately, whether the debate is reading instruction or standardized testing, my premise remains: We the educators should be those trusted to make the call when it comes to effective practices, not those with agendas steeped in fear or power-maintenance mode. And for that matter (sorry, one more tangent), I’d like to add that when it comes to methods of research (which I’m assuming proponents of any particular methodology base their arguments on), only quasi-experiments can be conducted on human subjects because of the innumerable variables; if we believe that this is true, then why on earth would it make sense to boast a single “best” method for any kind of instruction? The majority of articles on reading instruction that we read agreed that a blend of pedagogies is best; why do those with power so often fail to see the shades of gray that envelop education? Or, if they do see the gray, why is it a “bad” thing? Unfortunately, I think Andrea Neal (1999) reported the answer (ala Motes and Hall): “[C]hildren’s needs may take a back seat to adult... egos.” Here’s to hoping for humility….